moonslav59

We gotta shoot for longer, but yes, this type of deal make sense to Crochet. I guess the term "hefty" is what is debatable. Giving him $52M x 2 for those last 2 years, as you suggested) is too much, IMO. Maybe $70M/2 for the two added year, plus the $20M expected in arbs, so $90M/4 or $94 (starting now) might be acceptable to both sides. I'd try like hell to lock him up through prime. It is a major reason we got him in the first place, IMO. We gave up a lot due to his age and upside. was it worth trading 3 top 8 prospects for 2 arb years and a major overpay on 2 more years? Would $40M/yr for 4 added years be better? ($160M + $20M for 2 arb years= $180M/6) He becomes a FA at age 31. I still think $200M/8, counting the 2 arb years might be best for both sides, but that number might have to include an opt out. If the opt out was after year 4 or 5, it's a better offer for the Sox than yours. If the op out is after 3, I'm not so sure it's a good deal for the Sox, but it's better than no deal, and that was my original point. No deal vs an early opt out deal.

Making him the DH or co-DH with Devers, helps improve the 1B defense but keeps his bat around.

But Casas is cheap and will continue to be cheap through his arb years, if he keeps missing time. To me, he's poised for a major bust out year, if he can just stay healthy.

I did list those two in a seperate paragraph and mentioned they just missed a little time. The first 6 I listed should be viewed very differently, indeed. Sandoval & Murphy were paired, because they will likely start 2025 on the 60 Day IL. Gio and Hendriks were paired, because both missed all of 2024 and should be ready b y opening day. Buehler and Whitlock were paired, because they both pitched in 2024, although Whitlock was out after April and may miss opening day. (He should not be out longer than 15-30 days, so maybe no 60 Day for him. (Gio says he is close to being at the same place in their rehab progressions,) I admit, I have been piling on. I hate these types of signings: Buehler, Hendriks & Sandoval, but they do offer an enormous upside without a huge cost. $20M for Buehler is not cheap, nor is $18M for 1 to 1.5 seasons of Sandoval, but these guys can pitch better than that cost, and so can Hendriks. I'm a big fan of Whitlock and think he is a lot better than some seem to think he is. He could make up for the loss of the 2024 Jansen and Martin combo, all by himself- not in IP, but in dominance. Our pen has a lot of potential, but I'm not optimistic enough RP'ers reach that potential and make our pen a plus or major plus. I'd love to see us add Scott, but Estevez or a couple others guys left might be enough.

My guess is BOS is insisting on including Yoshida and the money exchange is the issue. STL is looking to save serious money, so taking Yoshida and some cash may not be saving them enough. The more I've thought about Arenado, the less I want him. His bat looks to be ready to drop off a cliff, and we'd be stuck with two Yoshidas. At least Arenado's D is good, but I'd say no without Yoshida. We may think about adding someone, other than Helsley, who is owed a lot, but we don't need Mikolas ($17.7M x 1 and $18.6 lux tax cost) or Matz ($12.5M and $11M tax cost.) Although Willson Contreras is not very good on D, he's better than Wong. He's a damn good RHB. The problem is, he's owed what Yoshida is owed ($18M x 3 and $17.5M on lux tax line.) Arenado + Contreras costs $45M in '25, $40M in '26 and $33M in '28 (counting COL's $5M payments over the first 2 years. The AAV would be: $43>$43>43. If we got Contreras included, I would not pay anything off Yoshida's deal, so in a sense, STL saves the full Arenado contract. Maybe we give them Rafaela, who is the only guy we can spare who is owed any large amount of money ($48M/7 remaining.) They may want Fitts or Priester or maybe even more, along with Rafaela, but I'm not sure how much they'd want or how much I'd give. Is Contreras really a major upgrade over Wong- projected over the next 3 years? (Wong had 4 years left- 3 as arbs.) Yoshida + Rafaela cost: $19M in '25, then $20>22M, then no Yoshida w Rafaela owed $40M/4 w option. The net cost of Yoshida+ Rafaela for Arenado + Contreras: -$26M in '25, $20M in '26 and $11M in '27, then we go plus by not paying Rafaela and Wong, but we are without a catcher and OF'er. So, does anyone like this trade? Yoshida, Rafaela and Cespedes for Contreras & Arenado with no cash involved. 1. L Duran LF/CF 2. R Contreras C 3. L Casas 1B/DH 4. L Devers 1B/DH 5. R Story SS 6. L Abreu RF/ R Refsnyder LF 7. R Campbell 2B 8. L Anthony CF/RF 9. R Arenado 3B Bench: Wong, Abreu/Refsnyder, DHam and Grissom/Romy

He will probably ask for an opt out after 2027 (3rd year) and maybe we end up having to settle on after 2028 (year 4.) Ideally, we just pay him a little more to give up on the opt-out demands, assuming he does that. If there was ever a player to want and need an opt out, he fits the profile.

2023-2024 fWAR: 4.5 Scott, 4.0 Clase, 3.8 Jax & Helsley, 3.6 Hoffman (Chapman is 8th) He's let up just 6 HRs in 146 IP.

To me, he fills a big need for us and is not a mega contract like Bregman.

It all depends on trusting his last 2 seasons and not much before that. The guy pitched 150 IP in relief (avg 75 a yr.) 2.04 ERA and 1.05 WHIP He had nasty numbers vs RHPs, too ,569 OPS Against in '24 (.415 v L) .499 v R in '23 and .587 v L He has been one of MLBs best RP'ers for 2 solid years. He's 30. I'd give him $68M/4 or $80M/5

When you figure Scott might make $64M/4, $33M/3 looks nice. Hoffman does not have a real long success story- like just 2 years, and he just turned 32 a couple days ago, but I'd have topped this deal ($35M/3?) Edited: I just read this... (maybe not) https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/01/orioles-pulled-out-of-agreement-with-jeff-hoffman-after-flagged-physical.html

Hoffman signs with Jays for $33M/3, and will likely be their closer. (Smaller AAV than Chapman.)

Yes. My offer is a big risk and doubles down on the chance it turns into a colossal bust. I get the risk. We made the trade, due mainly to his age and skillset. We rolled the dice on health and durability. If he bolts after two, it was a bad trade. We gotta give more to get him to say yes- and not $52M x 2.

I think everyone agrees. It gets tough when a player insists on one. I assume Bogey did. JD did. Price did. My priority is based on thinking Crochet is the real deal and is so young. I want to get him for as many years into prime as possible without an absurd overpay. It's risky as hell, due to his health and lack of a long record of success and durability, but we just gave up a lot to roll the dice on him. It seems weird that now, we second guess him and try to hedge our bets against the worst that might happen. We can't go absurd on making sure we extend him, at any cost, but we chose this guy as "our guy." We have to land him, longterm. If it gets absurd or he refuses fair offer, the next priority is get him to commit to as many years before any opt out- again without going absurd with dollars.

Yes, the threat of injury is why he's not going to get an extension at $35-40M a year, 2 years before he would lose the team control at arb prices. It's the main reason he'd sign, now. Every pitcher must worry a major injury could ruin his career and severely cut into his ability to make big money. It's not easy weighing all the risks and rewards to come up with a number that Crochet would agree to.

That's like $52M a year for the two extra years. I'd rather offer $200M/8 (including buying out arb years,) which comes to about $180M/6 for the extended years or $30M x 6 years. You know, there is also a chance he gets hurt but not like Sale- all but one year. Maybe he's only hurt for 2027 and 2028.

I mentioned that risk on an earlier post, and it is a major concern, especially a career ending one, or one where he never repeats 2024, again. All 6-8 year deals are an enormous risk. All have a risk of injury- some more than other. Crochet has the added risk of not having a long stretch of success or proven durability. I fully understand this and worry, like all of us. I can understand all that don't want to give a ton of guaranteed money to him, but IMO, I'd rather put my risk on a guy who will be 27 when the extension kicks in vs 30-32, like most FAs. Burnes and Fried are enormous risks, They are both proven. They both have proven durability. They both are on their way out of prime, before the halfway point of their contract. Crochet's 6 year extension will be almost entirely within prime. He would start the 6th year at age 32. To me, that adds the value.

Yes, you never gave up on our chances. You thought we could win it all from day one.

There was a major shift from 2023 to 2024 with 3rd time opportunities and success. OPS Against 3rd time through (PA sample size) 2023>2024 .937 (85) Houck .765 (195) (2024: .510 1st, .614 2nd) 1.142 (49) Crawford .720 (170) (2024: .677 1st, .709 2nd) .861 (156) Bello .780 (164) (2024: .787 1st, .622 2nd) Pivetta was the exception: .670 (69) to .808 (101) 2024: .642 1st, .751 2nd

The guy really mashed over his first two sesasons, mainly in 2020 and the second half of 2021. .959 first 92 PAs of career (2020) .895 middle 316 PAs of 2021 (.867 in last 345 of '21) Total for first 545 PAs (156 games 2020-2021) .243 33 94 (.819 OPS) That's a pretty nice start to a career, despite the 195 Ks in 156 games.

Cole turned 30 the first year of his deal. Crochet will turn 28 the first year. Cole had 3 really good years under his belt and 3-4 decent ones, when he signed. His worst years were his last 2 with PIT. He would not have gotten a great deal had he become a FA then, which was when he was the age Crochet will be (27-28.) He was 19-22 4.12 w a WHIP of 1.32. It was his 2 really good seasons with HOU that skyrocketed his FA value to $324M/9. Crochet does not deserve that ($36M x 9,) now. If he has two great years, he might come close, especially with inflation. He signed 4 seasons ago. We are going to have to pay Crochet for him to accept it.

I was talking about what Crochet will or might make when he becomes a FA after 2026. He will get FA money, then. I get the fact that signing an extension before you become a Free Agent does not mean you get FA money, especially when you just have just one year of doing well. If he had 3 years like 2024 and was a FA, and was a FA at 27, he'd get $35-40M a year x 6-8 years, easily. I'm not offering him that. This is not apples to apples. I'm for offering him the $1150M/6 others have suggested, but I'd go higher, if he does not get an opt out. I might go $180M/6 or $200M/7 with no opt out. I do not think he'd accept $150M/6. I would not, unless I think 2024 was a fluke.

Easier said than done. Good theory, but the reality is, these guys often suck the third time through. I'm wondering if we can use these starters for a batter or two on their "throwing day." The 6 man rotation does provide for a more balanced days off: 2 rest days- throwing day- 2 rest days, then a start.

They often under project everyone, but the rankings part is puzzling. Why did they shave off more value from the returning 2024 team than other teams that are older, as much or more injury prone, or did nothing to improve or even stay even in returning personnel? The O's are young, but they lost Santander and others from the previous year. The Yanks gain a couple nice everyday players but lost Soto and Torres and have some past prime players in key roles. The Astros lost Tucker & Bregman without equalling w replacements. The Ms lost Turner & Polanco and added what? Other teams did nothing special, this winter. (Neither did we with our everyday 13.)

This is how I see it. We started needing a 13 man staff, when SP'ers started getting a pat on the back for going 5 inning.

I get the difference between an opt out deal and no opt out. The guy only opts out, if he's doing well. I was only addressing the difference between 2 years and 3. I'd offer more money for him to drop the opt out demands, if he has them. It seems I'm willing to pay more than some, here. I do NOT want an opt out. I want him for more than 2 years. That is my #1 priority with him, right now.